Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iii) Shyama Charan Agarwal & Sons v. Union of India, (2002) 6 SCC 201 (Para 21) "21. In our view the view taken by the High Court cannot be sustained. It is clear from the arbitration clause viz. clause 70 that all disputes between the parties to the contract (other than excepted matters) can be referred to arbitration. The Contractor did make a claim in respect of future period also. The document appointing the arbitrator would show that the arbitrator was required to decide the disputes arising between the parties. It is not possible to hold that Claim 1 insofar as it relates to future period during which the contract work continued is beyond the scope of reference or outside the ambit of arbitration clause. The aim of arbitration is to settle all the disputes between the parties and to avoid further litigation. There is no legal justification in restricting the scope of arbitration in the manner in which the High Court did. In the list of disputes which is annexed to the letter of appointment of the arbitrator, it is mentioned without any qualification or restriction as follows:

(c) The Presiding Arbitrator shall necessarily be a serving railway/RVNL officer and he shall have same minimum qualification and experience as specified above for either of the two arbitrators.
(d) Out of 3 Arbitrators not more than one shall be a retired officer.
(iv) No person other than the persons appointed as per above procedure and having above qualification and experience shall act as arbitrator.
(v) Neither party shall be limited in the proceedings before such arbitrators to the evidence nor did arguments previously put before.
21. Section 11(8) does not help the Corporation at all in the fact situation. Firstly, there is no qualification for the arbitrator prescribed in the agreement. Secondly, to secure the appointment of an independent and impartial arbitrator, it is rather necessary that someone other than an officer of the Corporation is appointed as arbitrator once the Corporation has forfeited its right to appoint the arbitrator under Clause 29 of the agreement."

26. The aforesaid proposition of law was further reiterated by the Supreme Court in the case of North Eastern Railway v. Tripple Engineering Works, (2014) 9 SCC 288, wherein it was held as under:

"8. ...In the present case Clauses 64(3)(a)(ii) and (iii) of the General Conditions of Contract do not prescribe any specific qualification of the arbitrators that are to be appointed under the agreement except that they should be railway officers. As already noticed, even if the arbitration agreement was to specifically provide for any particular qualification(s) of an arbitrator the same would not denude the power of the Court acting Under Section 11(6), in an appropriate case to depart therefrom."